Reaction to Obama speech: A holding pattern, and moral appeal, on Syria

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama told the nation from the White House on Wednesday night that diplomacy suddenly holds "the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons" in Syria without use of force, but he declared the U.S. military will "be ready to respond" against President Bashar Assad if other measures fail.

For now, Obama said he had asked congressional leaders to postpone a vote on
legislation he has been seeking to authorize the use of military force against
Syria.

In a 16-minute speech, the president repeatedly offered reassurances that even the
failure of diplomacy — in promised talks at the United Nations or elsewhere —
would not plunge America into another war.

"I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria," he promised. "I
will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan. I will not
pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo."

"This would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective: deterring the use of
chemical weapons and degrading Assad's capabilities," he said.

The reality of the situation -- the rising Congressional opposition to a use of force resolution coupled with the uncertainty surrounding a nascent Russian-led effort to force Syria to hand over its chemical weapons -- meant that there really wasn’t much definitive the President could say about the future of U.S. action in the region. And, he didn’t. This was a holding pattern speech.

The core of the Obama argument was — as it has been for days now — a moral appeal. “When dictators commit atrocities, they depend on the world to look the other way,” Obama said at one point. But, it wasn’t just an appeal to our common morality. It was that if an act — gassing your own people — is condemned but tolerated by America then the chances of other rogue actors pressing the bounds of acceptable behavior in the future increases. What Obama seemed to be saying is that this isn’t about Syria — it’s about the next Syria and the one after that.

“It didn’t quite convince me,” Paul said on Fox News after the speech. “I think what he needed to lay out for the American public was a compelling American interest or national security interest in Syria.”

Paul added that he thinks the chemical weapons attacks in Syria “has nothing to do” with U.S. national security, saying “Syria is not a threat to us.”

» Reaction from other members of Congress and others to the speech:

"As the Obama administration continues to pursue a diplomatic resolution, the president justly made clear tonight that the threat of military action remains on the table as we continue to work to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction." — House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

"The administration's handling of the U.S. response to Syria has been so haphazard it's disappointed even the president's most ardent supporters. This rudderless diplomacy has embarrassed America on the world stage." — Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus.

"We should all push as hard as possible for a diplomatic solution, which would require Syria to give up its complete stockpile of chemical weapons and agree to cease future production and use, in a way that can be verified." — Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La.

That contradiction, Krauthammer continued, is the lack of international support. “That makes a sham of the idea that this is somehow some statement by all of humanity, by the community of nations as he called it, that I believe is a fiction,” he said.

The speech was “one of the most odd presidential speeches ever delivered,” he said.

“Here’s a president who urgently addresses the nation on all channels to call for a pause in something the nation does not want to do in the first place,” Krauthammer said. “This is almost unbelievable.”